of all the stupid places to bring up in a "no, seriously, Jesus was a modern Baptist, honest" type argument, that is the stupidest.
The relevant passage is this one:
When the wine was gone, Jesus' mother said to him, "They have no more wine."
"Dear woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied, "My time has not yet come."
His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you."
Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons.
Jesus said to the servants, "Fill the jars with water"; so they filled them to the brim.
Then he told them, "Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet."
They did so, and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine.
He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water
knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside and said, "Everyone brings out the
choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have
had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now." (John 2:1-10,NIV)
The "choice wine" served at the beginning contains alcohol. This is necessarily the case, as it makes people drunk: else they would not lose their ability to distinguish good wine from bad as the evening wore on. If good wine is expected to contain enough alcohol that the guests are drunk before it runs out, then non-alcoholic wine would not be considered "the best." If the wine that Jesus made was "the best," then it must have been at least comparable to the choice wines usually available, which means, among other things, alcoholic. Quite aside from the fact that your argument requires you to assume that the bible isn't quite true, it also makes no sense.
